Zero tolerance proposals for UK roads...

[irocfan]

surprised that this hasn't gained some traction on N, P & E...


Home-office wants to fk about with speeding tolerances and points. Predictably the usual throbbers are in favour (20's plenty - WTF????)


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/19/driver...


though not all are in favour...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/01/roads-...


Amended to remove ancient link

Edited by irocfan on Monday 20th August 09:39

[irocfan]

ralphrj said:

irocfan said:

surprised that this hasn't gained some traction on N, P & E...


Home-office wants to fk about with speeding tolerances and points. Predictably the usual throbbers are in favour (20's plenty - WTF????)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-129780/New...

The Daily Mail article mentions Home Office Minister Bob Ainsworth.

Bob Ainsworth was a Labour MP and worked at the Home Office between 2001 and 2003.

You have linked to an article that is at least 15 years old.

Ohhh fk . Thanks for that - was half asleep earlier, amended.

At least the belly-laugh is current - was a little surprised there wasn't more in the news after hearing about this on LBC last night

[irocfan]

La Liga said:

n a similar vain, it should be easy enough to realise that self-funding automated enforcement doesn't detract from the crimes / other you go on to talk of.

well we're constantly being told that all these scameras lose money so either you're wrong or they are?

[irocfan]

oyster said:

OK replace the accusation of moron with obstinate prat.

This ridiculous statistic that keeps getting trotted out on PH of accident causation and excessive or illegal speed is a complete red herring. A smokescreen designed to cover up something much more relevant - that excessive and illegal speed is almost certainly more likely to cause injury and death. To argue otherwise is to argue against physics and biology.

if you want to be truly pedantic you'd have to say that the cause of death is the sudden stop and not the speed. The problem we have is that it's being drummed into people that "speed kills" "speed = bad" ad nauseam with little or no thought going into the idea that bad driving isn't a good idea. That middle lane hogging can cause congestion and accidents.

I have, in common with many others, travelled well in excess of 100mph and haven't been killed to death. That being said I've also been the slowest thing on a motorway when it's been raining torrentially or foggy

[irocfan]

Mr2Mike said:

oyster said:

Whilst I tend to agree with you, both parts of your reply miss a critical point - that the general driving public just don’t have the talent or the inclination to apply the same sort of logic that you and I may do to driving.

99% of people on the road are not driving gods. They won’t improve their driving because they’re not interested. So the only way to protect them (and others) is to slow them down.

What makes you think that dropping the prosecution threshold by a few mph will actually slow people down? Will "zero tolerance" guarantee the availability of police resources required to enforce it? Will people already significantly exceeding the limit suddenly stop this behaviour?

indeed. The answer to rampant speed limit breaking is to lower a limit that's already being surpassed On the other hand the answer to rampant illegal 'soft' drug taking is to decriminalise small amounts of possession.... hmmmmm